The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[eyeheartawk]

Bargle can go right to hell.

Aleena should have minded her own business. As I recall, didn't she enter his castle?

 

[CleverNickName]

Aleena should have minded her own business. As I recall, didn't she enter his castle?

First of all, how dare you?
Second, it was a cave. A dirty hole in the ground, crawling with ghouls. She had just as much a right to be there as her murderer.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bargle can go right to hell.

Why?

Does Aleena have visiting hours?

 

[trappedslider]

They probably won't show up to take my hardcopy off my bookshelf, though. Or the print-on-demand "table copy" that I got. Or my collectable boxed sets...

 

[trappedslider]

Rueben’s Restaurant, Manhattan, 1952

Spoiler

I'll take a 44 Barbara stanwyck special on white

 

[Mannahnin]

That being the case, on a casual review I am kind of surprised that most Basic retroclones are B/X rather than BECMI/RC. I wonder why that is?

The age at which the OSR creators imprinted on D&D.

I imprinted on AD&D, so stuff like Swords & Wizardry, which emulates OD&D, does nothing for me. Nor does stuff that emulates 2E.

This theory has some plausibility. Most of the retroclone publishers do seem to be a bit older than me and more of them started with B/X than did with my Mentzer.

I've wondered that myself. It could be that most retroclones are based off of the B/X series (by Holmes) because it's older, and therefore has more nostalgia, than the BECM series (by Mentzer). Or it could be because of the overlap between them (both versions have Basic and Expert, but only the latter also has Companion and Masters). BECM was criticized heavily when it was released: fans of Holmes Basic thought it was unnecessary, fans of AD&D thought it was "for kids."

But you're right: most retroclones seem to favor B/X for some reason, and all I've got are guesses.

B/X is the better ruleset.

I know that the distinctions, from the 1000' view, seem miniscule now. But you just can't beat the elegance of Moldvay/Cook.

Yup.

Menzter has one or two genuine improvements, like Magic-Users and Elves getting Read Magic plus another spell, and being permitted to copy spells from scrolls into their own books. For my money, a big part of the fun of playing an M-U is the spell acquisition game. Adding new spells to your book is like a cross between getting new magic items and getting new class abilities. B/X not allowing you to add spells from scrolls or captured spellbooks is a definite oversight.

But for the most part Tom Moldvay's Basic (not Dr. J. Eric Holmes; he did the 1977 Basic set) and David Cook's Expert sets from 1981 really nailed a platonic ideal of D&D.

Very well edited, with fewer oversights (how long does paralysis from a Ghoul or Gelatinous Cube last? How do you fix it? Moldvay answers these questions; the AD&D PH and DMG do not) and unnecessary complications than AD&D. Their take on the demihuman races, while broadly unpopular compared to splitting race & class, is significantly more balanced than the AD&D version. Much less subject to min/maxing.

Mentzer, by comparison, adds some unnecessary complications and rules which no one really uses (like levels 15-36, and weapon mastery). And his Basic set, while one of the best ever designed for explaining to brand new players how to play, with its two solo tutorial adventures in the Players' book, is specifically designed for introducing new players. Those pages are largely wasted for experienced players who need a reference manual and have no need for tutorials. Due to that focus on teaching new players, his version also splits Basic into two separate books, so is less concise and elegant than Moldvay Basic. His version also cripples the Thief beyond its already poor ability % chances due to the decision to spread out its skill advancement over 36 levels instead of 14. Cook Expert promised that Thieves would get NEW amazing ninja-like abilities at levels beyond 14 once a Companion book was released, and then Mentzer's sets reneged on that promise, alas.

There are lots of little tiny changes from B/X to Mentzer BE if you're obsessive about it, but the main rules are so close that it's basically a choice between two nearly identical versions, one of which has a few more missteps and (IMO) errors in it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Meanwhile, Snarf is catching up on some of the OGL threads ....

 

[Scribe]

 

[Malmuria]

They probably won't show up to take my hardcopy off my bookshelf, though. Or the print-on-demand "table copy" that I got. Or my collectable boxed sets...


I've wondered that myself. It could be that most retroclones are based off of the B/X series (by Holmes) because it's older, and therefore has more nostalgia, than the BECM series (by Mentzer). Or it could be because of the overlap between them (both versions have Basic and Expert, but only the latter also has Companion and Masters). BECM was criticized heavily when it was released: fans of Holmes Basic thought it was unnecessary, fans of AD&D thought it was "for kids."

But you're right: most retroclones seem to favor B/X for some reason, and all I've got are guesses.

Part of it too is that what the OSR was really drilling down to doesn't require the CMI tiers. In fact it barely concerns the expert levels. This also explains why there are so many OSR adventures that are for levels 1-2, but very few for levels 5+.

 

[overgeeked]

The age at which the OSR creators imprinted on D&D.

I imprinted on AD&D, so stuff like Swords & Wizardry, which emulates OD&D, does nothing for me. Nor does stuff that emulates 2E.

A whole lot of the OSR crowd is younger than you seem to think.